Actions speak louder than words. Dilogy on the decision of the journal Acta Biochimica Polonica to exclude Russian science from publishing.

For the time being, as one of only a few journals world-wide, the scientific journal Acta Biochimica Polonica (henceforth ABP) has decided not to accept manuscripts submitted by authors affiliated with Russian institutions. This is a strong symbolic act of solidarity with Ukraine being assaulted by Russia. The questions are, however, how this unprecedented boycott of researchers from publishing because their nation leads a criminal war could be justified, and how this harsh action is in accordance with fundamental principles of science and its system.

On Dolly and the scandalous nature of life sciences and Where bioethics really begins.

25 years ago, Dolly the sheep and the cloning issue stood in the focus of widespread and heated societal and ethical discussions that, for the bigger part, were not rational. In the aftermath of Dolly, in Europe bioethics was established as a discipline that is hyper-sceptical critic of science. Bioethics seen from the point of view of science is nebulous to many researchers, such as Lewis Wolpert, who called bioethics "a gross load of nonsense". It appears that the image of science in bioethics and society has as much suffered and moved away from the factual truth, as the image of bioethics and society has suffered in science since the Dolly event. It is time to return to a reasonable view of science, bioethics and society - and of Dolly the sheep.

The "Fourth Musketeer". Bioethics: Within life sciences - or above? A choice to make now.

The article deals with the different organisational units in current bioethics, and their main characteristics concerning life sciences. Three out of four organisational units of current bioethics jeopardise the autonomy of life sciences by establishing rules, regulations and laws, regulating and restricting life sciences. Only the integration of bioethics in life science serves the interests of life sciences.

The "H5N1 publication case" and its conclusions.

The request of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) to the editors of the scientific journals SCIENCE and NATURE not to publish details on the modified H5N1-virus has surprisingly not caused a discussion on censorship within the scientific community (NSABB, 2012a, P.1). This may show that science generally acknowledges the necessity to cut out sensitive data from research results in publications that may serve as a manual for weapons of mass destruction. In this article the policy of the NSABB and the reaction of the scientific community is discussed, as well as the meaning of censorship in dual use research and how an appropriate organisation of future surveillance in sensitive science fields could be organised: To guarantee future undisturbed work in sensitive science fields, the establishment of an internationally organised frame for scientists dealing with dual-use-research is suggested.